Laurence Hurst wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 02:15:28PM +0100, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> Scott Robbins wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from the >> >> > command line (which you can reach via <ctrl><alt>-f1) or I think >> >> > you can append 3 to the kernel line... >> >> >> >> That doesn't work on Debian/Ubuntu because runlevels 2-5 are the >> same. >> >> ?!?!?! 2 isn't much used, except as a set of steps. But 3 and 5 are the >> same in Debian/Ubuntu? That's not like *any* other version of *Nix. >> <snip> > Debian's configuration (at least wrt 3 and 5 being aliases for the same > runlevel) is very similar to Slackware and Gentoo. The number and use of Haven't used slackware since, um, '95 or so. > runlevels, traditionally, have not been defined (although the LSB has In Linux? I mean, runlevel 3 was multi-user text mode as far back as Sun OS - I can remember putting things into 3, because X would while () { crash respawn } > tried to address this) and different conventions have been used in various > distributions (and, move widely, unices) - the use of 7 runlevels out of a > possible 10 also appears to be more convention than any hard-and-fast > rule. That said the convention used by CentOS does appear to be the most > common (and closest to the LSB's definition) in use by Linux distros > today. > > On System V and Solaris runlevel 5 is halt so you might get a nasty > surprise if you were expecting X11! <g> mark